Re: Routing a CTC connection
I had this setup for our z/VM test machine ages back when we ran out of OSA addresses on a 9672. But I no longer find the config files used then. What I remember is - you need to turn on PROXYARP in ASSORTEDPARM in the TCP/IP stack of VM - you need to specify also the IP address of the guest below the HOME statement Later we had to experiment with some Linux guests and the z/VM host didn't have free OSA addresses at that time, so I prepared a similar setup. This is what I find back (from 2004) This is what I did in VM's TCPIP stack to connect the VCTC of a guest (somewhere in 2004). It appears we were also preparing the move from Token Ring to Ethernet, so two setups) DEVICE OSATRDEV LCS 180 LINK TRCCM IBMTR 0 OSATRDEV DEVICE VCTCLIX0 CTC 800 LINK CTC_LIX0 CTC 0 VCTCLIX0 DEVICE VCTCLIX1 CTC 810 LINK CTC_LIX1 CTC 0 VCTCLIX1 DEVICE OSA1180 LCS 1180 LINK OSA1180LETHEROR802.3 0 OSA1180 DEVICE VCTCL1CTC 850 LINK CTC_L1CTC 0 VCTCL1 DEVICE VCTCL2CTC 860 LINK CTC_L2CTC 0 VCTCL2 HOME 192.168.9.2 TRCCM 10.200.0.53 CTC_LIX0 10.200.0.53 CTC_LIX1 10.48.10.88 OSA1180L 10.46.55.6 CTC_L1 10.46.55.10 CTC_L2 GATEWAY ; (IP) Network FirstLink Max. Packet Subnet Subnet ; Address Hop Name Size (MTU) MaskValue ; --- --- --- --- 10 = TRCCM 2052 0.255.0.0 0.200.0.0 10.200.0.230 =CTC_LIX01492 HOST 10.200.0.231 =CTC_LIX11492 HOST 10 =OSA1180L1492 0.255.0.0 0.48.0.0 10 =CTC_L1 1492 0.255.255.252 0.46.55.0 10.46.55.4 =CTC_L1 1492 HOST 10.46.55.8 =CTC_L2 1492 HOST I hope this helps a bit. 2010/8/26 KEETON Dave * SDC dave.kee...@state.or.us Greetings Listers, I'm wrestling with a routing issue between a real switch, a TCPIP service machine and another VM (on the same system) connected through a vCTCA. Assuming the formatting holds, here's a rough drawing of the connection: |-| | Real Switch | |-|-|| | OSA | |||---| .10 | VSWITCH ||| |---|| TCPIP | .11 vCTCA .12 |||-| | guest2 | |-| We've got a Cisco switch connected to an OSA-Express2, which has a VLAN-unaware VSWITCH attached. TCPIP is attached to the VSWITCH. Also attached to the TCPIP machine is the .11 address of the left side of the vCTCA connection. Connected to the 2nd VM on the other end of the vCTCA is address .12. This was configured using the following IFCONFIG statement: IFCONFIG CTC0 159.121.93.11/25 VCTC 800 OLIS 1800 PTP 159.121.93.12 PORTNUMBER 0 Before configuring and activating the vCTCA connection, this is what NETSTAT GATE displays: Known IPv4 gateways: Subnet Address Subnet Mask FirstHopFlgs PktSz Metric Link -- --- - -- -- Default none 192.168.93.1UGS 1500 none DV1000 192.168.93.0255.255.255.128 directUT 1500 none DV1000 IFCONFIG CTC0 192.168.93.11/25 VCTC 800 guest2 1800 PTP 192.168.93.12 PORTNUMBER 0 The NETSTAT output from this is: Known IPv4 gateways: Subnet Address Subnet Mask FirstHopFlgs PktSz Metric Link -- --- - -- -- Default none 192.168.93.1UGS 1500 none DV1000 *192.168.93.0255.255.255.128 directUT 9216 none CTC0* 192.168.93.0255.255.255.128 directUT 9216 none DV1000 192.168.93.12 HOST directUHS 9216 none CTC0 What happens is pings work from .12 to .11 and .10, but not to the GATEWAY of .1. I'm wondering if the problem is packets leave the system to the switch, but cannot find their way back because there are two identical route statements on two different interfaces. Is there a way to remove the dynamically added route listed here in line 2? Everything needs to come back via DV1000, I would think. Thanks in advance, Dave Keeton -- Kris Buelens, IBM Belgium, VM customer support
Coupling TN3270E sessions to VTAM
Hi all, I'm looking into the TN3270E server of TCP/IP for z/VM 5.4 as a replacement for a Cisco CIP/CPA TN3270E server. I have briefly tested the VM TN3270E server, and it seems to works fine. Using the Cisco based TN3270E server, our end-users get a VTAM SNA-session with an USSTAB menu, giving them access to our multidomain VTAM-network and all its applications running in several VM and VSE systems. I can do the same using the TN3270E server in VM: I can connect a TN3270E session to VM/VTAM using the DIAL VTAM command (manually, or from SCEXIT) which creates a Non-SNA-session on which I can show an USSTAB menu. This does require a DEFINE GRAF 3270 for every session that DIALs to VTAM. I tried that and it works, but can I use this DIAL-method for several thousands of TN3270E sessions? Is there a limit to the number of sessions? Or are there better ways for coupling a lot of VM/TN3270E sessions to VM/VTAM? Thanks, Geert. DISCLAIMER This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify postmas...@vanbreda.be This footnote also confirms that this email has been checked for the presence of viruses. Informatica J.Van Breda Co NV BTW BE 0427 908 174
Re: Coupling TN3270E sessions to VTAM
You didn't mention any guests? Do you have VTAM available in them? If so you can CTCA and use CDRM and CDRSC to access the applications in other systems. Frank M. Ramaekers Jr. -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Dieltiens Geert Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 4:03 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Coupling TN3270E sessions to VTAM Hi all, I'm looking into the TN3270E server of TCP/IP for z/VM 5.4 as a replacement for a Cisco CIP/CPA TN3270E server. I have briefly tested the VM TN3270E server, and it seems to works fine. Using the Cisco based TN3270E server, our end-users get a VTAM SNA-session with an USSTAB menu, giving them access to our multidomain VTAM-network and all its applications running in several VM and VSE systems. I can do the same using the TN3270E server in VM: I can connect a TN3270E session to VM/VTAM using the DIAL VTAM command (manually, or from SCEXIT) which creates a Non-SNA-session on which I can show an USSTAB menu. This does require a DEFINE GRAF 3270 for every session that DIALs to VTAM. I tried that and it works, but can I use this DIAL-method for several thousands of TN3270E sessions? Is there a limit to the number of sessions? Or are there better ways for coupling a lot of VM/TN3270E sessions to VM/VTAM? Thanks, Geert. DISCLAIMER This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify postmas...@vanbreda.be This footnote also confirms that this email has been checked for the presence of viruses. Informatica J.Van Breda Co NV BTW BE 0427 908 174 _ This message contains information which is privileged and confidential and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any review, disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this in error, please destroy it immediately and notify us at privacy...@ailife.com.
Re: Coupling TN3270E sessions to VTAM
Well, when I have DIALed into VTAM on my VM-TN3270E session then I can reach all VTAM-cross-domain resources/applications (e.g. several CICS region in CTC attached VSEs, etc.), just like I can when using our Cisco TN3270E server. My concearn was more about the thousands of DIAL commands and DEFINE GRAF commands, and using Non-SNA vs. SNA. I was wondering whether this was the correct way of implementing TN3270E in VM, and what its limitations might be. It looks like it's the only way, though... Thanks, Geert. -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Frank M. Ramaekers Sent: donderdag 26 augustus 2010 14:17 To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Coupling TN3270E sessions to VTAM You didn't mention any guests? Do you have VTAM available in them? If so you can CTCA and use CDRM and CDRSC to access the applications in other systems. Frank M. Ramaekers Jr. -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Dieltiens Geert Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 4:03 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Coupling TN3270E sessions to VTAM Hi all, I'm looking into the TN3270E server of TCP/IP for z/VM 5.4 as a replacement for a Cisco CIP/CPA TN3270E server. I have briefly tested the VM TN3270E server, and it seems to works fine. Using the Cisco based TN3270E server, our end-users get a VTAM SNA-session with an USSTAB menu, giving them access to our multidomain VTAM-network and all its applications running in several VM and VSE systems. I can do the same using the TN3270E server in VM: I can connect a TN3270E session to VM/VTAM using the DIAL VTAM command (manually, or from SCEXIT) which creates a Non-SNA-session on which I can show an USSTAB menu. This does require a DEFINE GRAF 3270 for every session that DIALs to VTAM. I tried that and it works, but can I use this DIAL-method for several thousands of TN3270E sessions? Is there a limit to the number of sessions? Or are there better ways for coupling a lot of VM/TN3270E sessions to VM/VTAM? Thanks, Geert. DISCLAIMER This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify postmas...@vanbreda.be This footnote also confirms that this email has been checked for the presence of viruses. Informatica J.Van Breda Co NV BTW BE 0427 908 174 _ This message contains information which is privileged and confidential and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any review, disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this in error, please destroy it immediately and notify us at privacy...@ailife.com.
Re: Coupling TN3270E sessions to VTAM
On 8/26/10 4:02 AM, Dieltiens Geert geert.dielti...@inf.vanbreda.be wrote: I can do the same using the TN3270E server in VM: I can connect a TN3270E session to VM/VTAM using the DIAL VTAM command (manually, or from SCEXIT) which creates a Non-SNA-session on which I can show an USSTAB menu. This does require a DEFINE GRAF 3270 for every session that DIALs to VTAM. I tried that and it works, but can I use this DIAL-method for several thousands of TN3270E sessions? Is there a limit to the number of sessions? Or are there better ways for coupling a lot of VM/TN3270E sessions to VM/VTAM? You should also check out using PVM (and the associated PVM gadgetry) as your target for the DIAL command. The PVM gateway code to VTAM is a bit nicer than having a non-SNA terminal type, and PVM presents a nice menu of systems that can be connected in lots of different ways (even multiplexed over NJE connections, if you actually had to do that...). PVM was designed to handle very large numbers of sessions and deal with dialed terminals.
Re: Z/VM EMC Dasd Dynamic PAV's shared IODF
We haven't isolated the dasd by CU (yet). I'm interested in what the potential for falure is. So far with the MOD-3's we've had no ill side affects. I imagine the risk would be greater with MOD-9's but I've not found any written doc on this issue, as if no one would consider doing it? Would VM or the Z/linux's ever attempt to steal a PAV from the Z/OS side, or would it be all Z/OS taking the PAV's ?.
Re: Z/VM EMC Dasd Dynamic PAV's shared IODF
http://www.vm.ibm.com/storman/pav/pav2.html#2006 , I finally found a writeup on the topic , at least up to date as of Z/VM 5.2.
Re: Coupling TN3270E sessions to VTAM
On Thursday, 08/26/2010 at 05:06 EDT, Dieltiens Geert geert.dielti...@inf.vanbreda.be wrote: I'm looking into the TN3270E server of TCP/IP for z/VM 5.4 as a replacement for a Cisco CIP/CPA TN3270E server. I have briefly tested the VM TN3270E server, and it seems to works fine. Using the Cisco based TN3270E server, our end-users get a VTAM SNA-session with an USSTAB menu, giving them access to our multidomain VTAM-network and all its applications running in several VM and VSE systems. I can do the same using the TN3270E server in VM: I can connect a TN3270E session to VM/VTAM using the DIAL VTAM command (manually, or from SCEXIT) which creates a Non-SNA-session on which I can show an USSTAB menu. This does require a DEFINE GRAF 3270 for every session that DIALs to VTAM. I tried that and it works, but can I use this DIAL-method for several thousands of TN3270E sessions? Is there a limit to the number of sessions? Or are there better ways for coupling a lot of VM/TN3270E sessions to VM/VTAM? DIAL is the only way to connect native VM TN3270E sessions to VTAM, whether you DIAL VTAM, DIAL PVM, or DIAL some other VTAM-enabled guest. If you DIAL VTAM, the limit on the number of sessions is based solely on the number of GRAFs you have defined and the number of the LOCAL LUs you have defined to VTAM. Having thousands of LOCAL LUs defined shouldn't particularly bother VTAM, but you may need to adjust virtual and common storage sizes. Or you may need multiple VTAMs and split things up. (Hey, if it's an odd IP address DIAL VTAM1. If even, dial VTAM2.) Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10
Greetings, We are currently running z/VM 5.2 and have z/VM 5.4 under test in a second level machine. We are pretty stable in our environment. There is a possibility within a year or so that we will be getting a z10. Should we go to 5.4 or 6.1? Are they any advantages in waiting for the new box and installing 6.1 on it (bypassing 5.4)? Thanks, Mike Horlick Conseiller CGI Gestion Intégrée des Technologies 1350 Boul. René-Lévesque Ouest Montréal, Qc, H3G 1T4
Re: z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10
Mike, zVM 6.1 requires a z10, so you can't go to 6.1 until you have a z10. 5.2 is unsupported, so the decision is do I run unsupported until I get a z10?. On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Horlick, Michael michael.horl...@cgi.com wrote: Greetings, We are currently running z/VM 5.2 and have z/VM 5.4 under test in a second level machine. We are pretty stable in our environment. There is a possibility within a year or so that we will be getting a z10. Should we go to 5.4 or 6.1? Are they any advantages in waiting for the new box and installing 6.1 on it (bypassing 5.4)? Thanks, Mike Horlick Conseiller CGI Gestion Intégrée des Technologies 1350 Boul. René-Lévesque Ouest Montréal, Qc, H3G 1T4
Re: z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10
From the z/VM 6.1 Announcement Letter: Hardware requirements z/VM V6.1 requires a new Architecture Level Set (ALS) that is available on the: System z10 Enterprise Class Refer to the DEVICE2097 Preventive Service Planning (PSP) bucket for the minimum MCL level and any required updates. System z10 Business Class Refer to the DEVICE2098 Preventive Service Planning (PSP) bucket for the minimum MCL level and any required updates. Specific processor facilities required by z/VM V6.1 can be found on the z/VM Web site at http://www.ibm.com/vm/zvm610/architecture/ Refer to the appendix of the z/VM General Information manual for more information. Mark Wheeler UnitedHealth Group -- Excellence. Always. If Not Excellence, What? If Not Excellence Now, When? Tom Peters, author of The Little BIG Things Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:47:34 -0400 From: michael.horl...@cgi.com Subject: z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10 To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Greetings, We are currently running z/VM 5.2 and have z/VM 5.4 under test in a second level machine. We are pretty stable in our environment. There is a possibility within a year or so that we will be getting a z10. Should we go to 5.4 or 6.1? Are they any advantages in waiting for the new box and installing 6.1 on it (bypassing 5.4)? Thanks, Mike Horlick Conseiller CGI Gestion Intégrée des Technologies 1350 Boul. René-Lévesque Ouest Montréal, Qc, H3G 1T4
Re: z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10
Hi, all which we have z/VM 5.4.0 running on z10 BC, until we stand support? Best Regards, Mario Izaguirre Mainframe System Programmer Barcelona, Spain -Mensaje original- De: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] En nombre de Ron Schmiedge Enviado el: jueves, 26 de agosto de 2010 17:53 Para: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Asunto: Re: z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10 Mike, zVM 6.1 requires a z10, so you can't go to 6.1 until you have a z10. 5.2 is unsupported, so the decision is do I run unsupported until I get a z10?. On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Horlick, Michael michael.horl...@cgi.com wrote: Greetings, We are currently running z/VM 5.2 and have z/VM 5.4 under test in a second level machine. We are pretty stable in our environment. There is a possibility within a year or so that we will be getting a z10. Should we go to 5.4 or 6.1? Are they any advantages in waiting for the new box and installing 6.1 on it (bypassing 5.4)? Thanks, Mike Horlick Conseiller CGI Gestion Intégrée des Technologies 1350 Boul. René-Lévesque Ouest Montréal, Qc, H3G 1T4
Re: z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10
Hi Ron, I realize we are unsupported since April 30,2009. The z10 can run both 5.4 and 6.1, correct? And it seems that 6.1 is supported till April 30, 2013 while 5.4 is supported till Sept 30,2013 so it seems end of support shouldn't be an issue. I'm just looking at feature or capability-wise between 5.4 and 6.1 Thanks, Mike Horlick Conseiller CGI Gestion Intégrée des Technologies 1350 Boul. René-Lévesque Ouest Montréal, Qc, H3G 1T4 -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Ron Schmiedge Sent: August 26, 2010 11:53 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10 Mike, zVM 6.1 requires a z10, so you can't go to 6.1 until you have a z10. 5.2 is unsupported, so the decision is do I run unsupported until I get a z10?. On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Horlick, Michael michael.horl...@cgi.com wrote: Greetings, We are currently running z/VM 5.2 and have z/VM 5.4 under test in a second level machine. We are pretty stable in our environment. There is a possibility within a year or so that we will be getting a z10. Should we go to 5.4 or 6.1? Are they any advantages in waiting for the new box and installing 6.1 on it (bypassing 5.4)? Thanks, Mike Horlick Conseiller CGI Gestion Intégrée des Technologies 1350 Boul. René-Lévesque Ouest Montréal, Qc, H3G 1T4
Re: Duplicate VOLID's
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 23:07:04 -0500, Tom Huegel tehue...@gmail.com wrote : In a normal production environment this is not such an insurmountable problem. The problem is this is a test lab, and I don't necessarily know what happens to the different disk volumes. I do know what addresses my system disks are on, but there may be copies that someone was testing with floating around. It may have been a in a second level machine, or a first level test.. It's only a problem at IPL .. The suggestions for using ONLINE_AT_IPL and OFFLINE_AT_IPL are great when you are in configuration where you know what DASD devices addresses are available and your systems disks have been restored to the appropriate addresses. Examples would be a 2nd level guest or a known 1st level LPAR . If you want the flexibility to be able to use any LPAR configuration with any DASD device addresses that happen to be configured to it then you nee d to take an extra step. Build a 1 pack recovery system that allows all devices to be online at IPL time. You restore and IPL the recovery syste m which won't care what volids are on any DASD address except itself. Then you have multiple options: A) You could relabel all (or just the problem subset of) the online DASD, thus solving your problem, or B) You could restore your main system packs and use the recovery system to update the SYSTEM CONFIG on your main RES volume with the appropriate ONLINE_AT_IPL and OFFLINE_AT_IPL addresses. Brian Nielsen
Re: z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10
5.4 runs fine on a z10 or a z196. We didn't find any compelling reason to go to 6.1 and will wait for the next one. Just about every new feature we are interested in is available as an SPE to 5.4. And it's way easier to put maintenance on 10 systems than it is to upgrade 10 systems. Marcy -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Horlick, Michael Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:04 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: [IBMVM] z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10 Hi Ron, I realize we are unsupported since April 30,2009. The z10 can run both 5.4 and 6.1, correct? And it seems that 6.1 is supported till April 30, 2013 while 5.4 is supported till Sept 30,2013 so it seems end of support shouldn't be an issue. I'm just looking at feature or capability-wise between 5.4 and 6.1 Thanks, Mike Horlick Conseiller CGI Gestion Intégrée des Technologies 1350 Boul. René-Lévesque Ouest Montréal, Qc, H3G 1T4 -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Ron Schmiedge Sent: August 26, 2010 11:53 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10 Mike, zVM 6.1 requires a z10, so you can't go to 6.1 until you have a z10. 5.2 is unsupported, so the decision is do I run unsupported until I get a z10?. On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Horlick, Michael michael.horl...@cgi.com wrote: Greetings, We are currently running z/VM 5.2 and have z/VM 5.4 under test in a second level machine. We are pretty stable in our environment. There is a possibility within a year or so that we will be getting a z10. Should we go to 5.4 or 6.1? Are they any advantages in waiting for the new box and installing 6.1 on it (bypassing 5.4)? Thanks, Mike Horlick Conseiller CGI Gestion Intégrée des Technologies 1350 Boul. René-Lévesque Ouest Montréal, Qc, H3G 1T4
Re: z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10
On Thursday, 08/26/2010 at 11:49 EDT, Horlick, Michael michael.horl...@cgi.com wrote: We are currently running z/VM 5.2 and have z/VM 5.4 under test in a second level machine. We are pretty stable in our environment. There is a possibility within a year or so that we will be getting a z10. Should we go to 5.4 or 6.1? Are they any advantages in waiting for the new box and installing 6.1 on it (bypassing 5.4)? If you wait, then you will be upgrading software and hardware at the same time. It's generally preferable to change only one of those at a time. Since z/VM 5.4 supports z10, I suggest you upgrade your existing machine to 5.4 and then slide your z10 in underneath later. THEN you can move up to 6.1 at your convenience with no loss of support. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10
Yes, 5.4 and 6.1 will both run on z10, and both are supported into 2013. If you can wait until you have a z10 then go to 6.1 when you get there, saves on time. Depending on your situation you could install 6.1 on the z10 as soon as you have it and when you switch machines switch to 6.1 at the same time. That's how we got to z/VM from VM/ESA - installed z/VM second level on new DASD attached to both old and new processors, and had to wait until the new processor was turned on to IPL the z/VM system, since it would not IPL on the old machine. Our client's contract requires us to be at supported levels on all software, so we've been on 5.4 for a while, which is where we will be until we get a z10 of our own. I can't comment on what is new in 6.1 - haven't looked since I can't consider it while running on a z800 anyway. Since we use VM to run VSE guests, we're more concerned about what features are in the next VSE release than what is new in VM. There are always the exceptions and we have used some of the things that changed in VM over the past 10 years and now depend on some of that new function, but the end of support stick is bigger than the new feature carrot. I'm sure the z/VM 6.1 Release Guide will help you. On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Horlick, Michael michael.horl...@cgi.com wrote: Hi Ron, I realize we are unsupported since April 30,2009. The z10 can run both 5.4 and 6.1, correct? And it seems that 6.1 is supported till April 30, 2013 while 5.4 is supported till Sept 30,2013 so it seems end of support shouldn't be an issue. I'm just looking at feature or capability-wise between 5.4 and 6.1 Thanks, Mike Horlick Conseiller CGI Gestion Intégrée des Technologies 1350 Boul. René-Lévesque Ouest Montréal, Qc, H3G 1T4 -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Ron Schmiedge Sent: August 26, 2010 11:53 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10 Mike, zVM 6.1 requires a z10, so you can't go to 6.1 until you have a z10. 5.2 is unsupported, so the decision is do I run unsupported until I get a z10?. On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Horlick, Michael michael.horl...@cgi.com wrote: Greetings, We are currently running z/VM 5.2 and have z/VM 5.4 under test in a second level machine. We are pretty stable in our environment. There is a possibility within a year or so that we will be getting a z10. Should we go to 5.4 or 6.1? Are they any advantages in waiting for the new box and installing 6.1 on it (bypassing 5.4)? Thanks, Mike Horlick Conseiller CGI Gestion Intégrée des Technologies 1350 Boul. René-Lévesque Ouest Montréal, Qc, H3G 1T4
Re: Coupling TN3270E sessions to VTAM
Thanks all, my questions have been answered. Bye, Geert. -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: donderdag 26 augustus 2010 17:25 To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Coupling TN3270E sessions to VTAM On Thursday, 08/26/2010 at 05:06 EDT, Dieltiens Geert geert.dielti...@inf.vanbreda.be wrote: I'm looking into the TN3270E server of TCP/IP for z/VM 5.4 as a replacement for a Cisco CIP/CPA TN3270E server. I have briefly tested the VM TN3270E server, and it seems to works fine. Using the Cisco based TN3270E server, our end-users get a VTAM SNA-session with an USSTAB menu, giving them access to our multidomain VTAM-network and all its applications running in several VM and VSE systems. I can do the same using the TN3270E server in VM: I can connect a TN3270E session to VM/VTAM using the DIAL VTAM command (manually, or from SCEXIT) which creates a Non-SNA-session on which I can show an USSTAB menu. This does require a DEFINE GRAF 3270 for every session that DIALs to VTAM. I tried that and it works, but can I use this DIAL-method for several thousands of TN3270E sessions? Is there a limit to the number of sessions? Or are there better ways for coupling a lot of VM/TN3270E sessions to VM/VTAM? DIAL is the only way to connect native VM TN3270E sessions to VTAM, whether you DIAL VTAM, DIAL PVM, or DIAL some other VTAM-enabled guest. If you DIAL VTAM, the limit on the number of sessions is based solely on the number of GRAFs you have defined and the number of the LOCAL LUs you have defined to VTAM. Having thousands of LOCAL LUs defined shouldn't particularly bother VTAM, but you may need to adjust virtual and common storage sizes. Or you may need multiple VTAMs and split things up. (Hey, if it's an odd IP address DIAL VTAM1. If even, dial VTAM2.) Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott DISCLAIMER This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify postmas...@vanbreda.be This footnote also confirms that this email has been checked for the presence of viruses. Informatica J.Van Breda Co NV BTW BE 0427 908 174
Re: z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10
Simple. z/VM 6.1 is needed for Z196 hardware. z/VM 5.4 will not run on it. It is positioning for the new hardware. Horlick, Michael michael.horl...@cgi.com Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 08/26/2010 12:04 PM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10 Hi Ron, I realize we are unsupported since April 30,2009. The z10 can run both 5.4 and 6.1, correct? And it seems that 6.1 is supported till April 30, 2013 while 5.4 is supported till Sept 30,2013 so it seems end of support shouldn't be an issue. I'm just looking at feature or capability-wise between 5.4 and 6.1 Thanks, Mike Horlick Conseiller CGI Gestion Intégrée des Technologies 1350 Boul. René-Lévesque Ouest Montréal, Qc, H3G 1T4 -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Ron Schmiedge Sent: August 26, 2010 11:53 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10 Mike, zVM 6.1 requires a z10, so you can't go to 6.1 until you have a z10. 5.2 is unsupported, so the decision is do I run unsupported until I get a z10?. On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Horlick, Michael michael.horl...@cgi.com wrote: Greetings, We are currently running z/VM 5.2 and have z/VM 5.4 under test in a second level machine. We are pretty stable in our environment. There is a possibility within a year or so that we will be getting a z10. Should we go to 5.4 or 6.1? Are they any advantages in waiting for the new box and installing 6.1 on it (bypassing 5.4)? Thanks, Mike Horlick Conseiller CGI Gestion Intégrée des Technologies 1350 Boul. René-Lévesque Ouest Montréal, Qc, H3G 1T4
Re: Duplicate VOLID's
I do know what addresses my system disks are on, Ah! - an argument for the convention of using the RDEV as the last four characters of the volser :)) Mike MacIsaac mike...@us.ibm.com (845) 433-7061
Re: z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10
Here, Here!! On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Alan Altmark alan_altm...@us.ibm.comwrote: On Thursday, 08/26/2010 at 11:49 EDT, Horlick, Michael michael.horl...@cgi.com wrote: We are currently running z/VM 5.2 and have z/VM 5.4 under test in a second level machine. We are pretty stable in our environment. There is a possibility within a year or so that we will be getting a z10. Should we go to 5.4 or 6.1? Are they any advantages in waiting for the new box and installing 6.1 on it (bypassing 5.4)? If you wait, then you will be upgrading software and hardware at the same time. It's generally preferable to change only one of those at a time. Since z/VM 5.4 supports z10, I suggest you upgrade your existing machine to 5.4 and then slide your z10 in underneath later. THEN you can move up to 6.1 at your convenience with no loss of support. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott -- Mark D Pace Senior Systems Engineer Mainline Information Systems
XRC timestamps for z/VM
The z/VM Platform Update session at SHARE in Boston said that XRC timestamps were coming soon (Sep-Nov) for z/VM. Will that be for both 5.4 and 6.1, or 6.1 only? As we saw with the SSL server changes, what was said in the session is not necessarily definitive. Dennis A few more such victories would have shortly put an end to British dominion in America. -- British General Henry Clinton, after the British victory at the Battle of Bunker Hill
Re: z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10
That's not true. a z10 or z196 is needed for 6.1. But 5.4 will run on both of those boxes as well. marcy From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of George Henke/NYLIC Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:54 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: [IBMVM] z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10 Simple. z/VM 6.1 is needed for Z196 hardware. z/VM 5.4 will not run on it. It is positioning for the new hardware.
Re: z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10
Hi Mike, We run 5.4 on z10. And since we also have some VM's on z890 we have decided that 6.1 didn't give us the advantage we would need to justify maintaining two VM levels. As for your case, you can't run 6.1 on your current machine so look at it the other way. Can 5.2 run on z10? Or perhaps, would you require service (latest RSU) to be applied before you move to the z10? In that case you require some work on the current system as it is now. I'd say move your 5.4 into production, including the lastest RSU, before you move to z10. That would make the move easier because you then only have to move to the other CPU instead of all kinds of migration activities on to of the move. And it would make your current system supported again. You can decide on zVM 6.x after you are on the z10. Regards, Berry. Op 26-08-10 18:03, Horlick, Michael schreef: Hi Ron, I realize we are unsupported since April 30,2009. The z10 can run both 5.4 and 6.1, correct? And it seems that 6.1 is supported till April 30, 2013 while 5.4 is supported till Sept 30,2013 so it seems end of support shouldn't be an issue. I'm just looking at feature or capability-wise between 5.4 and 6.1 Thanks, Mike Horlick Conseiller CGI Gestion Intégrée des Technologies 1350 Boul. René-Lévesque Ouest Montréal, Qc, H3G 1T4 -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Ron Schmiedge Sent: August 26, 2010 11:53 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10 Mike, zVM 6.1 requires a z10, so you can't go to 6.1 until you have a z10. 5.2 is unsupported, so the decision is do I run unsupported until I get a z10?. On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Horlick, Michael michael.horl...@cgi.com wrote: Greetings, We are currently running z/VM 5.2 and have z/VM 5.4 under test in a second level machine. We are pretty stable in our environment. There is a possibility within a year or so that we will be getting a z10. Should we go to 5.4 or 6.1? Are they any advantages in waiting for the new box and installing 6.1 on it (bypassing 5.4)? Thanks, Mike Horlick Conseiller CGI Gestion Intégrée des Technologies 1350 Boul. René-Lévesque Ouest Montréal, Qc, H3G 1T4
Re: z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10
z/VM 6.1 is needed for Z196 hardware. z/VM 5.4 will not run on it. Incorrect. z/VM 5.4 will run on a z196. z/VM 5.3 and earlier will not. Dennis A few more such victories would have shortly put an end to British dominion in America. -- British General Henry Clinton, after the British victory at the Battle of Bunker Hill From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of George Henke/NYLIC Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 09:54 To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: [IBMVM] z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10 Simple. z/VM 6.1 is needed for Z196 hardware. z/VM 5.4 will not run on it. It is positioning for the new hardware. Horlick, Michael michael.horl...@cgi.com Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 08/26/2010 12:04 PM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10 Hi Ron, I realize we are unsupported since April 30,2009. The z10 can run both 5.4 and 6.1, correct? And it seems that 6.1 is supported till April 30, 2013 while 5.4 is supported till Sept 30,2013 so it seems end of support shouldn't be an issue. I'm just looking at feature or capability-wise between 5.4 and 6.1 Thanks, Mike Horlick Conseiller CGI Gestion Intégrée des Technologies 1350 Boul. René-Lévesque Ouest Montréal, Qc, H3G 1T4 -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Ron Schmiedge Sent: August 26, 2010 11:53 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10 Mike, zVM 6.1 requires a z10, so you can't go to 6.1 until you have a z10. 5.2 is unsupported, so the decision is do I run unsupported until I get a z10?. On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Horlick, Michael michael.horl...@cgi.com wrote: Greetings, We are currently running z/VM 5.2 and have z/VM 5.4 under test in a second level machine. We are pretty stable in our environment. There is a possibility within a year or so that we will be getting a z10. Should we go to 5.4 or 6.1? Are they any advantages in waiting for the new box and installing 6.1 on it (bypassing 5.4)? Thanks, Mike Horlick Conseiller CGI Gestion Intégrée des Technologies 1350 Boul. René-Lévesque Ouest Montréal, Qc, H3G 1T4
Re: z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10
Thank you. I stand corrected and also learned something new today. z196 prereq's z/VM 6.1, but z/VM 6.1 does not prereq z196. Marcy Cortes marcy.d.cor...@wellsfargo.com Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 08/26/2010 03:42 PM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10 That's not true. a z10 or z196 is needed for 6.1. But 5.4 will run on both of those boxes as well. marcy From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of George Henke/NYLIC Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:54 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: [IBMVM] z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10 Simple. z/VM 6.1 is needed for Z196 hardware. z/VM 5.4 will not run on it. It is positioning for the new hardware.
Re: z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10
z/VM 5.2 plus fixes runs fine on a z10 (I've got one such customer) 2010/8/26 Berry van Sleeuwen berry.vansleeu...@xs4all.nl Hi Mike, We run 5.4 on z10. And since we also have some VM's on z890 we have decided that 6.1 didn't give us the advantage we would need to justify maintaining two VM levels. As for your case, you can't run 6.1 on your current machine so look at it the other way. Can 5.2 run on z10? Or perhaps, would you require service (latest RSU) to be applied before you move to the z10? In that case you require some work on the current system as it is now. I'd say move your 5.4 into production, including the lastest RSU, before you move to z10. That would make the move easier because you then only have to move to the other CPU instead of all kinds of migration activities on to of the move. And it would make your current system supported again. You can decide on zVM 6.x after you are on the z10. Regards, Berry. Op 26-08-10 18:03, Horlick, Michael schreef: Hi Ron, I realize we are unsupported since April 30,2009. The z10 can run both 5.4 and 6.1, correct? And it seems that 6.1 is supported till April 30, 2013 while 5.4 is supported till Sept 30,2013 so it seems end of support shouldn't be an issue. I'm just looking at feature or capability-wise between 5.4 and 6.1 Thanks, Mike Horlick Conseiller CGI Gestion Intégrée des Technologies 1350 Boul. René-Lévesque Ouest Montréal, Qc, H3G 1T4 -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Ron Schmiedge Sent: August 26, 2010 11:53 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10 Mike, zVM 6.1 requires a z10, so you can't go to 6.1 until you have a z10. 5.2 is unsupported, so the decision is do I run unsupported until I get a z10?. On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Horlick, Michael michael.horl...@cgi.com wrote: Greetings, We are currently running z/VM 5.2 and have z/VM 5.4 under test in a second level machine. We are pretty stable in our environment. There is a possibility within a year or so that we will be getting a z10. Should we go to 5.4 or 6.1? Are they any advantages in waiting for the new box and installing 6.1 on it (bypassing 5.4)? Thanks, Mike Horlick Conseiller CGI Gestion Intégrée des Technologies 1350 Boul. René-Lévesque Ouest Montréal, Qc, H3G 1T4 -- Kris Buelens, IBM Belgium, VM customer support
Re: XRC timestamps for z/VM
5.4 as well as 6.1 Marcy -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of O'Brien, Dennis L Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 12:02 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: [IBMVM] XRC timestamps for z/VM The z/VM Platform Update session at SHARE in Boston said that XRC timestamps were coming soon (Sep-Nov) for z/VM. Will that be for both 5.4 and 6.1, or 6.1 only? As we saw with the SSL server changes, what was said in the session is not necessarily definitive. Dennis A few more such victories would have shortly put an end to British dominion in America. -- British General Henry Clinton, after the British victory at the Battle of Bunker Hill
Re: z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10
Actually, z196 requires 5.4 or 6.1 (PTFs required for both) 6.1 requires a z10 or z196. It's all confusing :) Thank you. I stand corrected and also learned something new today. z196 prereq's z/VM 6.1, but z/VM 6.1 does not prereq z196. Marcy Cortes marcy.d.cor...@wellsfargo.com Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 08/26/2010 03:42 PM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10 That's not true. a z10 or z196 is needed for 6.1. But 5.4 will run on both of those boxes as well. marcy From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of George Henke/NYLIC Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:54 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: [IBMVM] z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10 Simple. z/VM 6.1 is needed for Z196 hardware. z/VM 5.4 will not run on it. It is positioning for the new hardware.
EXECSERV documentation
Some time within the last year I recall browsing a large EXECSERV manual online, but now I can't find it. I know from the archives that it hasn't been supported for a long time. My employer wants me to convert EXECSERV calls to use more modern, suppor ted tools. Documentation would be helpful. Can anybody please tell me where to find it again?
Re: Duplicate VOLID's
Alas, that's about the worst possible convention to adopt if you ever plan to replace your DASD farm. Mark Wheeler UnitedHealth Group Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 13:55:05 -0400 From: mike...@us.ibm.com Subject: Re: Duplicate VOLID's To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU I do know what addresses my system disks are on, Ah! - an argument for the convention of using the RDEV as the last four characters of the volser :)) Mike MacIsaac mike...@us.ibm.com (845) 433-7061
Re: z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10
ok, I'll try again. z196 prereq's z/VM 6.1 or z/VM 5.4 and z/VM 6.1 prereq's z10 or z196. So then How many peppers did Peter Piper pick? Marcy Cortes marcy.d.cor...@wellsfargo.com Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 08/26/2010 03:59 PM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10 Actually, z196 requires 5.4 or 6.1 (PTFs required for both) 6.1 requires a z10 or z196. It's all confusing :) Thank you. I stand corrected and also learned something new today. z196 prereq's z/VM 6.1, but z/VM 6.1 does not prereq z196. Marcy Cortes marcy.d.cor...@wellsfargo.com Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 08/26/2010 03:42 PM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10 That's not true. a z10 or z196 is needed for 6.1. But 5.4 will run on both of those boxes as well. marcy From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of George Henke/NYLIC Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:54 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: [IBMVM] z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10 Simple. z/VM 6.1 is needed for Z196 hardware. z/VM 5.4 will not run on it. It is positioning for the new hardware.
Re: z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10
What put level of z/VM 5.4 is required to move it to the z10? From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Mark Pace Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 11:25 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10 Here, Here!! On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Alan Altmark alan_altm...@us.ibm.com wrote: On Thursday, 08/26/2010 at 11:49 EDT, Horlick, Michael michael.horl...@cgi.com wrote: We are currently running z/VM 5.2 and have z/VM 5.4 under test in a second level machine. We are pretty stable in our environment. There is a possibility within a year or so that we will be getting a z10. Should we go to 5.4 or 6.1? Are they any advantages in waiting for the new box and installing 6.1 on it (bypassing 5.4)? If you wait, then you will be upgrading software and hardware at the same time. It's generally preferable to change only one of those at a time. Since z/VM 5.4 supports z10, I suggest you upgrade your existing machine to 5.4 and then slide your z10 in underneath later. THEN you can move up to 6.1 at your convenience with no loss of support. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott -- Mark D Pace Senior Systems Engineer Mainline Information Systems
Re: z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10
Means 5.4 is a happy place to be ;) Not too cold not too hot. EOS date is later than 6.1 as well. Until we get that bright and shiny SSI stuff of couse! marcy From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of George Henke/NYLIC Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 1:07 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: [IBMVM] z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10 ok, I'll try again. z196 prereq's z/VM 6.1 or z/VM 5.4 and z/VM 6.1 prereq's z10 or z196. So then How many peppers did Peter Piper pick? Marcy Cortes marcy.d.cor...@wellsfargo.com Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 08/26/2010 03:59 PM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10 Actually, z196 requires 5.4 or 6.1 (PTFs required for both) 6.1 requires a z10 or z196. It's all confusing :) Thank you. I stand corrected and also learned something new today. z196 prereq's z/VM 6.1, but z/VM 6.1 does not prereq z196. Marcy Cortes marcy.d.cor...@wellsfargo.com Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 08/26/2010 03:42 PM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10 That's not true. a z10 or z196 is needed for 6.1. But 5.4 will run on both of those boxes as well. marcy From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of George Henke/NYLIC Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:54 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: [IBMVM] z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10 Simple. z/VM 6.1 is needed for Z196 hardware. z/VM 5.4 will not run on it. It is positioning for the new hardware.
EXECSERV documentation
I found this 8000-line file, with machine carriage control, on one of the disks where I work: VM/SP EXEC Services Program March 8th, 1982 Jerry Metcoff Northwest Industries, Inc. Chicago Data Center So that solves my problem. I guess it isn't on any IBM web site any more .
Re: XRC timestamps for z/VM
On Thursday, 08/26/2010 at 03:39 EDT, O'Brien, Dennis L dennis.l.o'br...@bankofamerica.com wrote: The z/VM Platform Update session at SHARE in Boston said that XRC timestamps were coming soon (Sep-Nov) for z/VM. Will that be for both 5.4 and 6.1, or 6.1 only? As we saw with the SSL server changes, what was said in the session is not necessarily definitive. The changes that will be made *only* to 6.1 are: - Support for z/VM participation in an ensemble managed by zManager on the z196 - FIPS-mode enablement of the SSL server and its attendant upgrades to System SSL and the Binder. All other SSL server enhancements will be on 5.4 as well. [This was the source of the confusion at SHARE.] Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: EXECSERV documentation
It's seems to be on the tape from the 1987 VM Workshop hosted by Kansas State. Pasted: ---snip--- FORMAT LRECLRECORDSDATE TIME EXECSERV $MANUAL Z1V 70 3 05/20/87 16:44:34 EXECSERV $README Z1V 70 7 05/20/87 16:46:21 EXECSERV BUNDLE Z2F 80 6 05/20/87 17:48:35 EXECSERV ERRMSGS Z2F 80108 07/15/83 16:04:05 EXECSERV MENULIST Z2V 8 51 07/15/83 16:05:06 EXECSERV MODULE Z2V 1208 2 07/15/83 16:00:10 ---snip--- Not sure how why there's such a difference between the 8000-line file on your disk and the 3 records on the workshop tape! But I'm loading the tape to learn why. :-) Mike Walter Hewitt Associates The opinions expressed herein are mine alone, not my employer's. Alan Winson alan_win...@yahoo.com Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 08/26/2010 03:13 PM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject EXECSERV documentation I found this 8000-line file, with machine carriage control, on one of the disks where I work: VM/SP EXEC Services Program March 8th, 1982 Jerry Metcoff Northwest Industries, Inc. Chicago Data Center So that solves my problem. I guess it isn't on any IBM web site any more. The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be monitored as permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure compliance with our internal policies and to protect our business. E-mails are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by e-mail.
Re: XRC timestamps for z/VM
Wasn't there another one related to performance and vswitch moving large amounts of stuff from one virtual server to another? Marcy -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 1:18 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: [IBMVM] XRC timestamps for z/VM On Thursday, 08/26/2010 at 03:39 EDT, O'Brien, Dennis L dennis.l.o'br...@bankofamerica.com wrote: The z/VM Platform Update session at SHARE in Boston said that XRC timestamps were coming soon (Sep-Nov) for z/VM. Will that be for both 5.4 and 6.1, or 6.1 only? As we saw with the SSL server changes, what was said in the session is not necessarily definitive. The changes that will be made *only* to 6.1 are: - Support for z/VM participation in an ensemble managed by zManager on the z196 - FIPS-mode enablement of the SSL server and its attendant upgrades to System SSL and the Binder. All other SSL server enhancements will be on 5.4 as well. [This was the source of the confusion at SHARE.] Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: XRC timestamps for z/VM
Marcy, Perhaps you're thinking of the z/VM 6.1 virtual switch performance enhancement in the base, which applies to data moving between virtual servers. It uses some new instructions that are only on z10 and later. Dennis A few more such victories would have shortly put an end to British dominion in America. -- British General Henry Clinton, after the British victory at the Battle of Bunker Hill -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Marcy Cortes Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 13:20 To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: [IBMVM] XRC timestamps for z/VM Wasn't there another one related to performance and vswitch moving large amounts of stuff from one virtual server to another? Marcy -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 1:18 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: [IBMVM] XRC timestamps for z/VM On Thursday, 08/26/2010 at 03:39 EDT, O'Brien, Dennis L dennis.l.o'br...@bankofamerica.com wrote: The z/VM Platform Update session at SHARE in Boston said that XRC timestamps were coming soon (Sep-Nov) for z/VM. Will that be for both 5.4 and 6.1, or 6.1 only? As we saw with the SSL server changes, what was said in the session is not necessarily definitive. The changes that will be made *only* to 6.1 are: - Support for z/VM participation in an ensemble managed by zManager on the z196 - FIPS-mode enablement of the SSL server and its attendant upgrades to System SSL and the Binder. All other SSL server enhancements will be on 5.4 as well. [This was the source of the confusion at SHARE.] Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: XRC timestamps for z/VM
Ah, yes, that's it. So it is a change that *has* been made, not a *will* be made from Alan's list. Marcy -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of O'Brien, Dennis L Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 1:25 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: [IBMVM] XRC timestamps for z/VM Marcy, Perhaps you're thinking of the z/VM 6.1 virtual switch performance enhancement in the base, which applies to data moving between virtual servers. It uses some new instructions that are only on z10 and later. Dennis A few more such victories would have shortly put an end to British dominion in America. -- British General Henry Clinton, after the British victory at the Battle of Bunker Hill -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Marcy Cortes Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 13:20 To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: [IBMVM] XRC timestamps for z/VM Wasn't there another one related to performance and vswitch moving large amounts of stuff from one virtual server to another? Marcy -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 1:18 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: [IBMVM] XRC timestamps for z/VM On Thursday, 08/26/2010 at 03:39 EDT, O'Brien, Dennis L dennis.l.o'br...@bankofamerica.com wrote: The z/VM Platform Update session at SHARE in Boston said that XRC timestamps were coming soon (Sep-Nov) for z/VM. Will that be for both 5.4 and 6.1, or 6.1 only? As we saw with the SSL server changes, what was said in the session is not necessarily definitive. The changes that will be made *only* to 6.1 are: - Support for z/VM participation in an ensemble managed by zManager on the z196 - FIPS-mode enablement of the SSL server and its attendant upgrades to System SSL and the Binder. All other SSL server enhancements will be on 5.4 as well. [This was the source of the confusion at SHARE.] Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10
Reasons to go z196: •Has technological improvements including new Blade service center – ability to manage workload on x86 and Aix machines that are connected to z/OS via private network •Improved energy efficiency and ability to measure power usage •Greater engine speed and more sub-capacity options •More concurrent upgrades •Memory is backed up (Every part now has redundancy, but memory. zNext fixes that) •Recent trends suggest that many new software features are supported on the newest technology •If z10 life cycle is the same as z9 (5 years) it might become unsupported in Feb 2013. Skipping z10 and going to the newest machine gives more flexibility in planning lease terms. •Finally, possible reduced IBM software cost due to the new MSU rating (10% lower for each new generation of the IBM processors). This also helps with software products that charge by the MSU processor engines. Most of the ISVs, notably CA base their software payments on MIPS capacity. Marcy Cortes marcy.d.cor...@wellsfargo.com Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 08/26/2010 03:59 PM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10 Actually, z196 requires 5.4 or 6.1 (PTFs required for both) 6.1 requires a z10 or z196. It's all confusing :) Thank you. I stand corrected and also learned something new today. z196 prereq's z/VM 6.1, but z/VM 6.1 does not prereq z196. Marcy Cortes marcy.d.cor...@wellsfargo.com Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 08/26/2010 03:42 PM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10 That's not true. a z10 or z196 is needed for 6.1. But 5.4 will run on both of those boxes as well. marcy From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of George Henke/NYLIC Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:54 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: [IBMVM] z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10 Simple. z/VM 6.1 is needed for Z196 hardware. z/VM 5.4 will not run on it. It is positioning for the new hardware.
Re: z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10
On Thursday, 08/26/2010 at 04:10 EDT, Austin, Alyce (CIV) aus...@nps.edu wrote: What put level of z/VM 5.4 is required to move it to the z10? You *need* to be at service level 902, aka RSU 5404, but you will *want* to be at SL 1002 (RSU 5407), as some of the original PTFs were marked PE. See http://www.vm.ibm.com/service/vmreqz10.html. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: Sending files from CMS as Attachments
Does anyone out there have a copy of the SMTPNOTE EXEC that has been modified to send attached PDF files without destroying the format of the PDF files? My old copy from 1999 is hammering the PDF attachment. Thank you Bill Pettit -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of peter.w...@ttc.ca Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 11:14 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Sending files from CMS as Attachments I use SMTPNOTE EXEC to do this. -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Davis, Larry Sent: June 20, 2007 09:10 To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Sending files from CMS as Attachments Is there any method to send a CMS file as an attachment in an email? We have applications which produce formatted documents like PDF's and the user wants to send them to their clients, but sendfile incorporates the files into the email, rather than attaching the file. Any Help would be greatly appreciated. Larry Davis _ The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review retransmission dissemination or other use of or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient or delegate is strictly prohibited. If you received this in error please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. The integrity and security of this message cannot by guaranteed on the Internet. The Sender accepts no liability for the content of this e-mail or for the consequences of any actions taken on basis of the information provided. The recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The sender accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. This disclaimer is the property of the TTC and must not be altered or circumvented in any manner.
Re: Duplicate VOLID's
The obvious argument against using the rdev in the volser is when you end up needing to move the data to a new volume, or restore the pack after a physical problem, then you no longer have a match between the volser and the rdev, and it becomes very confusing from there. There really isn¹t one ideal way to do it. -- Robert P. Nix Mayo Foundation.~. RO-OC-1-18 200 First Street SW/V\ 507-284-0844 Rochester, MN 55905 /( )\ -^^-^^ In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice, theory and practice are different. On 8/26/10 12:55 PM, Michael MacIsaac mike...@us.ibm.com wrote: I do know what addresses my system disks are on, Ah! - an argument for the convention of using the RDEV as the last four characters of the volser :)) Mike MacIsaac mike...@us.ibm.com (845) 433-7061
Re: Sending files from CMS as Attachments
What about the MAILIT from the IBM z/VM Download page http://www.vm.ibm.com/download/packages/mailit.vmarc It can handle binary attachments. Lionel Lionel B. Dyck z/Linux Specialist IBM Corporation Global Technology Services - Kaiser Account Work: 925-926-5332 Cell: 925-348-0237 E-Mail: ld...@us.ibm.com AIM: lbdyck | Yahoo IM: lbdyck | GTalk: lbdyck From: Bill Pettit bill.pet...@ormutual.com To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Date: 08/26/2010 01:53 PM Subject:Re: Sending files from CMS as Attachments Sent by:The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Does anyone out there have a copy of the SMTPNOTE EXEC that has been modified to send attached PDF files without destroying the format of the PDF files? My old copy from 1999 is hammering the PDF attachment. Thank you Bill Pettit -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of peter.w...@ttc.ca Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 11:14 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Sending files from CMS as Attachments I use SMTPNOTE EXEC to do this. -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Davis, Larry Sent: June 20, 2007 09:10 To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Sending files from CMS as Attachments Is there any method to send a CMS file as an attachment in an email? We have applications which produce formatted documents like PDF's and the user wants to send them to their clients, but sendfile incorporates the files into the email, rather than attaching the file. Any Help would be greatly appreciated. Larry Davis The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review retransmission dissemination or other use of or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient or delegate is strictly prohibited. If you received this in error please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. The integrity and security of this message cannot by guaranteed on the Internet. The Sender accepts no liability for the content of this e-mail or for the consequences of any actions taken on basis of the information provided. The recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The sender accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. This disclaimer is the property of the TTC and must not be altered or circumvented in any manner.
Re: z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10
Is RSU 5407 available? -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 1:48 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10 On Thursday, 08/26/2010 at 04:10 EDT, Austin, Alyce (CIV) aus...@nps.edu wrote: What put level of z/VM 5.4 is required to move it to the z10? You *need* to be at service level 902, aka RSU 5404, but you will *want* to be at SL 1002 (RSU 5407), as some of the original PTFs were marked PE. See http://www.vm.ibm.com/service/vmreqz10.html. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: EXECSERV documentation
Well... that was a bust. The EXECSERVE $MANUAL file contained: The EXECSERV MANUAL file has been omitted due to space considerations. The entire EXECSERV package is available on the Waterloo VM mods tape. Interested parties are directed to that tape. I could not find any files with names containing 'EXECSERV' that looked liked a manual on the 20 Workshop tapes I have. Workshop tapes often contained Waterloo tape files, VMSHARE files, and PCSHARE files, and sometimes UK tape files. Mike Walter Hewitt Associates The opinions expressed herein are mine alone, not my employer's. Mike Walter/National/Hewitt associa...@hewitt Associates NA Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 08/26/2010 03:20 PM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: EXECSERV documentation It's seems to be on the tape from the 1987 VM Workshop hosted by Kansas State. Pasted: ---snip--- FORMAT LRECLRECORDSDATE TIME EXECSERV $MANUAL Z1V 70 3 05/20/87 16:44:34 EXECSERV $README Z1V 70 7 05/20/87 16:46:21 EXECSERV BUNDLE Z2F 80 6 05/20/87 17:48:35 EXECSERV ERRMSGS Z2F 80108 07/15/83 16:04:05 EXECSERV MENULIST Z2V 8 51 07/15/83 16:05:06 EXECSERV MODULE Z2V 1208 2 07/15/83 16:00:10 ---snip--- Not sure how why there's such a difference between the 8000-line file on your disk and the 3 records on the workshop tape! But I'm loading the tape to learn why. :-) Mike Walter Hewitt Associates The opinions expressed herein are mine alone, not my employer's. Alan Winson alan_win...@yahoo.com Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 08/26/2010 03:13 PM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject EXECSERV documentation I found this 8000-line file, with machine carriage control, on one of the disks where I work: VM/SP EXEC Services Program March 8th, 1982 Jerry Metcoff Northwest Industries, Inc. Chicago Data Center So that solves my problem. I guess it isn't on any IBM web site any more. The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be monitored as permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure compliance with our internal policies and to protect our business. E-mails are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by e-mail. The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be monitored as permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure compliance with our internal policies and to protect our business. E-mails are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by e-mail. The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be monitored as permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure compliance with our internal
Re: z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10
On Thursday, 08/26/2010 at 05:00 EDT, Austin, Alyce (CIV) aus...@nps.edu wrote: Is RSU 5407 available? Yes. http://www.vm.ibm.com/service/rsu/ is your friend. From there you can link to RSU contents, as well as discover how to equate the Service Level with the stacked RSU number. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10
Does RSU 5407 run on the z800? -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 2:22 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10 On Thursday, 08/26/2010 at 05:00 EDT, Austin, Alyce (CIV) aus...@nps.edu wrote: Is RSU 5407 available? Yes. http://www.vm.ibm.com/service/rsu/ is your friend. From there you can link to RSU contents, as well as discover how to equate the Service Level with the stacked RSU number. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: Duplicate VOLID's
That is absolutely the wrong thing to do. I am now suffering because someone else did that to dasd that is EMFFd to 3 LPARS. (It was all ZLccuu). It requires meticulous record keeping and is very error prone. I did wipe out a disk needed by one system because the records I received were not complete Fortunately, it was a disk that was to be used by a new system and had not been updated; it was easy to restore. Also, it is a huge headache if you ever replace your DASD. I don't know about RACF, but there is no mechanism built into VM:Secure for easily doing a mass update of volsers ( I know, you can change the volser with one command - if it is a VM:Secure .controlled disk and nobody is linked to it. The latter is hard to achieve around here.) Regards, Richard Schuh From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Michael MacIsaac Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 10:55 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Duplicate VOLID's I do know what addresses my system disks are on, Ah! - an argument for the convention of using the RDEV as the last four characters of the volser :)) Mike MacIsaac mike...@us.ibm.com (845) 433-7061
Re: Sending files from CMS as Attachments
On Thursday, 08/26/2010 at 05:00 EDT, Lionel Dyck/Oakland/i...@ibmus wrote: What about the MAILIT from the IBM z/VM Download page http://www.vm.ibm.com/download/packages/mailit.vmarc It can handle binary attachments. Anything wrong with SENDFILE? SF MY PDF TO user AT domain.com (MIME BINARY-ATTACH SUBJECT 'Here is the PDF you wanted' Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10
My 5.4 testbed (second level under 5.4) is running at RSU 1002 (5407) now, no complaints from my testbed and everyone is playing on a z800. There is also a list of service (the 2098ZVM bucket) required in addition to RSU 1002 to support a z10. On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Austin, Alyce (CIV) aus...@nps.edu wrote: Does RSU 5407 run on the z800? -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 2:22 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10 On Thursday, 08/26/2010 at 05:00 EDT, Austin, Alyce (CIV) aus...@nps.edu wrote: Is RSU 5407 available? Yes. http://www.vm.ibm.com/service/rsu/ is your friend. From there you can link to RSU contents, as well as discover how to equate the Service Level with the stacked RSU number. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10
On Thursday, 08/26/2010 at 05:33 EDT, Austin, Alyce (CIV) aus...@nps.edu wrote: Does RSU 5407 run on the z800? RSUs don't change the architectural level set (ALS) or the supported processor list for the release, so, yes, it still works on a z800. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: Sending files from CMS as Attachments
I'll give it a try. Thank you. Bill -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Lionel Dyck Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 1:57 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Sending files from CMS as Attachments What about the MAILIT from the IBM z/VM Download page http://www.vm.ibm.com/download/packages/mailit.vmarc It can handle binary attachments. Lionel _ Lionel B. Dyck z/Linux Specialist IBM Corporation Global Technology Services - Kaiser Account Work: 925-926-5332 Cell: 925-348-0237 E-Mail: ld...@us.ibm.com AIM: lbdyck | Yahoo IM: lbdyck | GTalk: lbdyck http://www.ibm.com/ibm/values/ From:Bill Pettit bill.pet...@ormutual.com To:IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Date:08/26/2010 01:53 PM Subject:Re: Sending files from CMS as Attachments Sent by:The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU _ Does anyone out there have a copy of the SMTPNOTE EXEC that has been modified to send attached PDF files without destroying the format of the PDF files? My old copy from 1999 is hammering the PDF attachment. Thank you Bill Pettit -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of peter.w...@ttc.ca Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 11:14 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Sending files from CMS as Attachments I use SMTPNOTE EXEC to do this. -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Davis, Larry Sent: June 20, 2007 09:10 To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Sending files from CMS as Attachments Is there any method to send a CMS file as an attachment in an email? We have applications which produce formatted documents like PDF's and the user wants to send them to their clients, but sendfile incorporates the files into the email, rather than attaching the file. Any Help would be greatly appreciated. Larry Davis _ The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review retransmission dissemination or other use of or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient or delegate is strictly prohibited. If you received this in error please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. The integrity and security of this message cannot by guaranteed on the Internet. The Sender accepts no liability for the content of this e-mail or for the consequences of any actions taken on basis of the information provided. The recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The sender accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. This disclaimer is the property of the TTC and must not be altered or circumvented in any manner.
Re: z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10
Great...I can have it ready to go when we get our z10 BC!!! -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 3:22 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10 On Thursday, 08/26/2010 at 05:33 EDT, Austin, Alyce (CIV) aus...@nps.edu wrote: Does RSU 5407 run on the z800? RSUs don't change the architectural level set (ALS) or the supported processor list for the release, so, yes, it still works on a z800. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: Sending files from CMS as Attachments
Yep, I had finally broke down and pulled up the CMS manual and found the mime binary-attach option that I was missing. It helps to practice what you preach... Thank you all Bill -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 3:00 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Sending files from CMS as Attachments On Thursday, 08/26/2010 at 05:00 EDT, Lionel Dyck/Oakland/i...@ibmus wrote: What about the MAILIT from the IBM z/VM Download page http://www.vm.ibm.com/download/packages/mailit.vmarc It can handle binary attachments. Anything wrong with SENDFILE? SF MY PDF TO user AT domain.com (MIME BINARY-ATTACH SUBJECT 'Here is the PDF you wanted' Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: Duplicate VOLID's
Hmm.. RACF isn't really related as it's protecting minidisks on z/VM, at least - and doesn't care about volsers the mindisks are on.The process for DIRMAINT is probably similar to the things that need doing on VM:Secure to do the directory changes: - Make a 'monolithic' copy of the directory and run a PIPE to change all volsers.. then initialize DIRMAINT using the new directory (USER INPUT) - Put the directory online (DIRM DIRECT) - Change EXTENT CONTROL similarly and do a DIRM RLDE I'm in favor of labels using the rdev - unless you really have frequent changes of DASD - to me, the benefits outweigh the occassional need to update the directory. YMMV, as this thread indicates. Scott Rohling On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Schuh, Richard rsc...@visa.com wrote: That is absolutely the wrong thing to do. I am now suffering because someone else did that to dasd that is EMFFd to 3 LPARS. (It was all ZLccuu). It requires meticulous record keeping and is very error prone. I did wipe out a disk needed by one system because the records I received were not complete Fortunately, it was a disk that was to be used by a new system and had not been updated; it was easy to restore. Also, it is a huge headache if you ever replace your DASD. I don't know about RACF, but there is no mechanism built into VM:Secure for easily doing a mass update of volsers ( I know, you can change the volser with one command - if it is a VM:Secure .controlled disk and nobody is linked to it. The latter is hard to achieve around here.) Regards, Richard Schuh -- *From:* The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] *On Behalf Of *Michael MacIsaac *Sent:* Thursday, August 26, 2010 10:55 AM *To:* IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU *Subject:* Re: Duplicate VOLID's I do know what addresses my system disks are on, Ah! - an argument for the convention of using the RDEV as the last four characters of the volser :)) Mike MacIsaac mike...@us.ibm.com (845) 433-7061
Re: Duplicate VOLID's
DIRMAINT is just a directory manager. It is similar to the directory manager component of VM:Secure. DIRMAINT does have the capability to do mass updates of the directory. VM:Secure does not. I have my own form of mass updater. I create code to perform the update of a generic single user and temporarily EXECLOAD it as PROFILE XEDIT. Then I run a pipe that looks something like this: 'PIPE id list a | spec /vmsecure edit/ 1 w1 nw | cms | log file a' It usually runs quickly because our directory has fewer than 2000 userids in it. It might not be acceptable on a system with 1+ userids. Regards, Richard Schuh From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Scott Rohling Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 4:56 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Duplicate VOLID's Hmm.. RACF isn't really related as it's protecting minidisks on z/VM, at least - and doesn't care about volsers the mindisks are on.The process for DIRMAINT is probably similar to the things that need doing on VM:Secure to do the directory changes: - Make a 'monolithic' copy of the directory and run a PIPE to change all volsers.. then initialize DIRMAINT using the new directory (USER INPUT) - Put the directory online (DIRM DIRECT) - Change EXTENT CONTROL similarly and do a DIRM RLDE I'm in favor of labels using the rdev - unless you really have frequent changes of DASD - to me, the benefits outweigh the occassional need to update the directory. YMMV, as this thread indicates. Scott Rohling On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Schuh, Richard rsc...@visa.commailto:rsc...@visa.com wrote: That is absolutely the wrong thing to do. I am now suffering because someone else did that to dasd that is EMFFd to 3 LPARS. (It was all ZLccuu). It requires meticulous record keeping and is very error prone. I did wipe out a disk needed by one system because the records I received were not complete Fortunately, it was a disk that was to be used by a new system and had not been updated; it was easy to restore. Also, it is a huge headache if you ever replace your DASD. I don't know about RACF, but there is no mechanism built into VM:Secure for easily doing a mass update of volsers ( I know, you can change the volser with one command - if it is a VM:Secure .controlled disk and nobody is linked to it. The latter is hard to achieve around here.) Regards, Richard Schuh From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDUmailto:IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU] On Behalf Of Michael MacIsaac Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 10:55 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDUmailto:IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Duplicate VOLID's I do know what addresses my system disks are on, Ah! - an argument for the convention of using the RDEV as the last four characters of the volser :)) Mike MacIsaac mike...@us.ibm.commailto:mike...@us.ibm.com (845) 433-7061
Re: Sending files from CMS as Attachments
You make it look too easy, Alan :-) Regards, Richard Schuh -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 3:00 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Sending files from CMS as Attachments On Thursday, 08/26/2010 at 05:00 EDT, Lionel Dyck/Oakland/i...@ibmus wrote: What about the MAILIT from the IBM z/VM Download page http://www.vm.ibm.com/download/packages/mailit.vmarc It can handle binary attachments. Anything wrong with SENDFILE? SF MY PDF TO user AT domain.com (MIME BINARY-ATTACH SUBJECT 'Here is the PDF you wanted' Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: Duplicate VOLID's
So I guess there is no way to absolutly protect z/VM from using the wrong pack at IPL.. Maybe a requirement? In SYSTEM CONFIG allow optional rdev on the SLOT deffinations. comments? On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 5:15 PM, Schuh, Richard rsc...@visa.com wrote: DIRMAINT is just a directory manager. It is similar to the directory manager component of VM:Secure. DIRMAINT does have the capability to do mass updates of the directory. VM:Secure does not. I have my own form of mass updater. I create code to perform the update of a generic single user and temporarily EXECLOAD it as PROFILE XEDIT. Then I run a pipe that looks something like this: 'PIPE id list a | spec /vmsecure edit/ 1 w1 nw | cms | log file a' It usually runs quickly because our directory has fewer than 2000 userids in it. It might not be acceptable on a system with 1+ userids. Regards, Richard Schuh -- *From:* The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] *On Behalf Of *Scott Rohling *Sent:* Thursday, August 26, 2010 4:56 PM *To:* IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU *Subject:* Re: Duplicate VOLID's Hmm.. RACF isn't really related as it's protecting minidisks on z/VM, at least - and doesn't care about volsers the mindisks are on.The process for DIRMAINT is probably similar to the things that need doing on VM:Secure to do the directory changes: - Make a 'monolithic' copy of the directory and run a PIPE to change all volsers.. then initialize DIRMAINT using the new directory (USER INPUT) - Put the directory online (DIRM DIRECT) - Change EXTENT CONTROL similarly and do a DIRM RLDE I'm in favor of labels using the rdev - unless you really have frequent changes of DASD - to me, the benefits outweigh the occassional need to update the directory. YMMV, as this thread indicates. Scott Rohling On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Schuh, Richard rsc...@visa.com wrote: That is absolutely the wrong thing to do. I am now suffering because someone else did that to dasd that is EMFFd to 3 LPARS. (It was all ZLccuu). It requires meticulous record keeping and is very error prone. I did wipe out a disk needed by one system because the records I received were not complete Fortunately, it was a disk that was to be used by a new system and had not been updated; it was easy to restore. Also, it is a huge headache if you ever replace your DASD. I don't know about RACF, but there is no mechanism built into VM:Secure for easily doing a mass update of volsers ( I know, you can change the volser with one command - if it is a VM:Secure .controlled disk and nobody is linked to it. The latter is hard to achieve around here.) Regards, Richard Schuh -- *From:* The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] *On Behalf Of *Michael MacIsaac *Sent:* Thursday, August 26, 2010 10:55 AM *To:* IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU *Subject:* Re: Duplicate VOLID's I do know what addresses my system disks are on, Ah! - an argument for the convention of using the RDEV as the last four characters of the volser :)) Mike MacIsaac mike...@us.ibm.com (845) 433-7061
Re: Duplicate VOLID's
Then it sounds like changing volids isn't such a big deal? ;-) Automation can really help simplify the annoying stuff.. Scott Rohling On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Schuh, Richard rsc...@visa.com wrote: DIRMAINT is just a directory manager. It is similar to the directory manager component of VM:Secure. DIRMAINT does have the capability to do mass updates of the directory. VM:Secure does not. I have my own form of mass updater. I create code to perform the update of a generic single user and temporarily EXECLOAD it as PROFILE XEDIT. Then I run a pipe that looks something like this: 'PIPE id list a | spec /vmsecure edit/ 1 w1 nw | cms | log file a' It usually runs quickly because our directory has fewer than 2000 userids in it. It might not be acceptable on a system with 1+ userids. Regards, Richard Schuh -- *From:* The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] *On Behalf Of *Scott Rohling *Sent:* Thursday, August 26, 2010 4:56 PM *To:* IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU *Subject:* Re: Duplicate VOLID's Hmm.. RACF isn't really related as it's protecting minidisks on z/VM, at least - and doesn't care about volsers the mindisks are on.The process for DIRMAINT is probably similar to the things that need doing on VM:Secure to do the directory changes: - Make a 'monolithic' copy of the directory and run a PIPE to change all volsers.. then initialize DIRMAINT using the new directory (USER INPUT) - Put the directory online (DIRM DIRECT) - Change EXTENT CONTROL similarly and do a DIRM RLDE I'm in favor of labels using the rdev - unless you really have frequent changes of DASD - to me, the benefits outweigh the occassional need to update the directory. YMMV, as this thread indicates. Scott Rohling On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Schuh, Richard rsc...@visa.com wrote: That is absolutely the wrong thing to do. I am now suffering because someone else did that to dasd that is EMFFd to 3 LPARS. (It was all ZLccuu). It requires meticulous record keeping and is very error prone. I did wipe out a disk needed by one system because the records I received were not complete Fortunately, it was a disk that was to be used by a new system and had not been updated; it was easy to restore. Also, it is a huge headache if you ever replace your DASD. I don't know about RACF, but there is no mechanism built into VM:Secure for easily doing a mass update of volsers ( I know, you can change the volser with one command - if it is a VM:Secure .controlled disk and nobody is linked to it. The latter is hard to achieve around here.) Regards, Richard Schuh -- *From:* The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] *On Behalf Of *Michael MacIsaac *Sent:* Thursday, August 26, 2010 10:55 AM *To:* IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU *Subject:* Re: Duplicate VOLID's I do know what addresses my system disks are on, Ah! - an argument for the convention of using the RDEV as the last four characters of the volser :)) Mike MacIsaac mike...@us.ibm.com (845) 433-7061
Re: Duplicate VOLID's
Would definitely agree an rdev specification on the SLOT def would be very useful.I just recently built a 2nd level guest and neglected to relabel the volumes before they IPL'd the 1st level system ... ugly. Wouldn't have happened if the real address was specified... good idea! Scott Rohling On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 7:58 PM, Tom Huegel tehue...@gmail.com wrote: So I guess there is no way to absolutly protect z/VM from using the wrong pack at IPL.. Maybe a requirement? In SYSTEM CONFIG allow optional rdev on the SLOT deffinations. comments? On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 5:15 PM, Schuh, Richard rsc...@visa.com wrote: DIRMAINT is just a directory manager. It is similar to the directory manager component of VM:Secure. DIRMAINT does have the capability to do mass updates of the directory. VM:Secure does not. I have my own form of mass updater. I create code to perform the update of a generic single user and temporarily EXECLOAD it as PROFILE XEDIT. Then I run a pipe that looks something like this: 'PIPE id list a | spec /vmsecure edit/ 1 w1 nw | cms | log file a' It usually runs quickly because our directory has fewer than 2000 userids in it. It might not be acceptable on a system with 1+ userids. Regards, Richard Schuh -- *From:* The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] *On Behalf Of *Scott Rohling *Sent:* Thursday, August 26, 2010 4:56 PM *To:* IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU *Subject:* Re: Duplicate VOLID's Hmm.. RACF isn't really related as it's protecting minidisks on z/VM, at least - and doesn't care about volsers the mindisks are on.The process for DIRMAINT is probably similar to the things that need doing on VM:Secure to do the directory changes: - Make a 'monolithic' copy of the directory and run a PIPE to change all volsers.. then initialize DIRMAINT using the new directory (USER INPUT) - Put the directory online (DIRM DIRECT) - Change EXTENT CONTROL similarly and do a DIRM RLDE I'm in favor of labels using the rdev - unless you really have frequent changes of DASD - to me, the benefits outweigh the occassional need to update the directory. YMMV, as this thread indicates. Scott Rohling On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Schuh, Richard rsc...@visa.com wrote: That is absolutely the wrong thing to do. I am now suffering because someone else did that to dasd that is EMFFd to 3 LPARS. (It was all ZLccuu). It requires meticulous record keeping and is very error prone. I did wipe out a disk needed by one system because the records I received were not complete Fortunately, it was a disk that was to be used by a new system and had not been updated; it was easy to restore. Also, it is a huge headache if you ever replace your DASD. I don't know about RACF, but there is no mechanism built into VM:Secure for easily doing a mass update of volsers ( I know, you can change the volser with one command - if it is a VM:Secure .controlled disk and nobody is linked to it. The latter is hard to achieve around here.) Regards, Richard Schuh -- *From:* The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] *On Behalf Of *Michael MacIsaac *Sent:* Thursday, August 26, 2010 10:55 AM *To:* IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU *Subject:* Re: Duplicate VOLID's I do know what addresses my system disks are on, Ah! - an argument for the convention of using the RDEV as the last four characters of the volser :)) Mike MacIsaac mike...@us.ibm.com (845) 433-7061
Re: Duplicate VOLID's
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 18:58:08 -0700, Tom Huegel tehue...@gmail.com wrote : So I guess there is no way to absolutly protect z/VM from using the wron g pack at IPL.. Maybe a requirement? In SYSTEM CONFIG allow optional rdev on the SLOT deffinations. comments? I would rather see z/VM issue prompt messages the way z/OS does for duplicate volsers/duplicate SYSRES packs: IEA213A DUPLICATE VOLUME volname FOUND ON DEVICES dev1 AND dev2. REPLY DEVICE NUMBER WHICH IS TO REMAIN OFFLINE IEA214A DUPLICATE SYSRES volname FOUND ON DEVICE dev. VERIFY THAT CORRECT DEVICE WAS USED FOR IPL. DUPLICATE DEVICE WILL REMAIN OFFLINE. REPLY CONT TO CONTINUE IPL This gives you/operations the chance to pick which duplicate volume should be offline, (or which one should be online), instead of z/VM picking one for you and probably using the wrong one. This is one of the few things that z/OS does better then z/VM! :-) -- Dale R. Smith
Re: Duplicate VOLID's
How much 'protection' is really necessary here? If something like this is implemented *AND* the wrong device number is used in the slot definition, your system could be rendered non-IPLable because the volid on the slot doesn't match the one on the volume. What takes precedence? Should the IPL stop and CP go through a dialog asking a bunch of silly questions about which volume you 'really' intended to use? The volumes should be labeled properly in the first place. I'll vote strongly negative for a requirement to change this process for the reasons indicated so far. On 08/26/2010 09:45 PM, Scott Rohling wrote: Would definitely agree an rdev specification on the SLOT def would be very useful. I just recently built a 2nd level guest and neglected to relabel the volumes before they IPL'd the 1st level system ... ugly. Wouldn't have happened if the real address was specified... good idea! Scott Rohling -- Rich Smrcina Phone: 414-491-6001 http://www.linkedin.com/in/richsmrcina Catch the WAVV! http://www.wavv.org WAVV 2011 - April 15-19, 2011 Colorado Springs, CO
Re: Duplicate VOLID's
One can't always be sure the packs are labeled properly.. Besides why depend on people when software can do it better. I suspect the reasons for VM just choosing by volid goes back to when the disk packs were removable, put your second level testRES on the shelf when you were done. Putting an OPTIONAL rdev on the SLOT makes sense, similiar to a DEDICATE statement with both rdev and volid. If there is no rdev on the SLOT and there are dups, or the voild on the rdev doesn't match, then ask questions. Maybe be able to run a mini editor from SAPL to correct SYSTEM CONFIG errors. On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Rich Smrcina r...@velocitysoftware.comwrote: How much 'protection' is really necessary here? If something like this is implemented *AND* the wrong device number is used in the slot definition, your system could be rendered non-IPLable because the volid on the slot doesn't match the one on the volume. What takes precedence? Should the IPL stop and CP go through a dialog asking a bunch of silly questions about which volume you 'really' intended to use? The volumes should be labeled properly in the first place. I'll vote strongly negative for a requirement to change this process for the reasons indicated so far. On 08/26/2010 09:45 PM, Scott Rohling wrote: Would definitely agree an rdev specification on the SLOT def would be very useful.I just recently built a 2nd level guest and neglected to relabel the volumes before they IPL'd the 1st level system ... ugly. Wouldn't have happened if the real address was specified... good idea! Scott Rohling -- Rich Smrcina Phone: 414-491-6001 http://www.linkedin.com/in/richsmrcina Catch the WAVV! http://www.wavv.org WAVV 2011 - April 15-19, 2011 Colorado Springs, CO
